HARI SHANKER SINGH,CHUTIA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANCHI

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH-RANCHI

Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.358/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Hari Shanker Singh….….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant C/o S K Enterprises, Chutia, Anandpuri, Panchwati, Near Poddar Dharmshala, Jharkhand-834001. [PAN: BDNPS5665J] vs. ITO, Ranchi……………………..................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Sunit Dasgupta, DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : January 13, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : January 21 , 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 26.03.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual running business of trading of FMCG goods on wholesale and retail basis. The assessee has filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 30.11.2014 by declaring the total income of Rs.8,15,520/-. Subsequently, the case has been selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has purchased two pieces of land and there was no difference between the actual purchase price and the purchase price as per the Stamp Duly Act.

I.T.A. No.358/Ran/2024 Hari Shanker Singh

The Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceeding by making addition of Rs.42,71,316/- as income of the assessee by assessing total income at Rs.50,86,836/-. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to respond due to non-compliance during the appellate proceedings. 4. The assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. However, despite issuance of notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. We, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, cannot be kept pending the appeal indefinitely and was heard ex parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR who supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. From the record, it is evident that the assessee failed to furnish supporting documents in support of the claim of the assessee. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to substantiate its claims with supporting evidence. Accordingly, the entire matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to examine the issues afresh on merits, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate fully and furnish all necessary supporting documents. In case of failure to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A), the appellate authority shall be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record.

I.T.A. No.358/Ran/2024 Hari Shanker Singh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 21st January, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Ratnesh Nandan Sahay] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member

Dated: 21.01.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

HARI SHANKER SINGH,CHUTIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANCHI